ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Chris Wallace Schools Pawlenty: 5 Percent Growth Came After Tax Increases

Republican presidential contender and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty may have been expecting a friendly reception when he sat down for an interview this morning with Fox News’ Chris Wallace. But he didn’t get one. The Fox host hammered Pawlenty on his recently released — and fantastically unrealistic — economic plan, which slashes taxes for corporations and millionaires while assuming unrealistic growth estimates.

Pawlenty’s plan would cost $7.8 trillion, or triple the size of the Bush tax cuts, and explode the deficit. Furthermore, his plan’s incredulously assumes 5 percent growth for 10 years in a row while eliminating revenue. As Wallace pointed out, there have only been two times in recent history when the U.S. has achieved 5 percent growth — and they both came after tax increases. Pawlenty seemed stumped by how to respond to this ugly truth about his so-called “pro-growth” plan:

PAWLENTY: We have achieved 5 percent growth twice in the recent history of this country. Once under Reagan, once under Clinton. Now was it sustained for 10 years in those circumstances? [...]

WALLACE: But governor, is it declinist to doubt the 5 percent number or is it just a realist to doubt the 5 percent number? You talk about the fact that for a few years in the 80s and a few years in the 90s that we did have average 5 percent growth – or close to it, it was 4 point something. But the fact is, the difference is, in both of those occasions that was coming directly out of a recession, not after a year, a year into a weak recovery. And actually, in both of those cases, it came after a tax increase, not a tax cut.

PAWLENTY: But Chris, as I said — this is an aspirational goal.

Watch it:

The former governor kept hedging by admitting his plan is “aspirational.” “Unrealistic” would be the more accurate qualifier. As Ezra Klein noted at the Washington Post, “This plan isn’t optimistic. It isn’t a bit vague. It’s a joke.” And as Wallace pointed out, it’s not just liberals and moderates who are dismissing this plan as a pipe dream – Pawlenty’s fellow conservatives think it’s foolhardy too. Conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin wrote, “I love tax cuts as much as the next conservative, but…[this plan] is not a very serious budget policy.” Just this morning, conservative columnist George Will added his voice to the chorus of dissent, saying sustained 5% growth “will not happen.”

Yglesias

Relaxation Of Cuba Embargo Improving Cuban Living Standards

Good news. The idea that Cuban Communism constitutes some kind of threat to the United States that’s best dealt with by trying to starve the island’s population into oblivion makes very little sense. Hopefully the government in Havana will continue to reform, and US policy will continue to evolve in a more rational direction.

Climate Progress

Must-see climate change video connects the dots, while a NY Times story on the record Arizona wildfires fails to

Last month, 350.org founder Bill McKibben published a must-read op-ed about the failure of the media and others to connect any dots between recent extreme weather events and climate change.  Stephen Thomson of Plomomedia has combined McKibben’s words with striking images.

Underscoring McKibben’s point is an uber-lame New York Times story today, “As Arizona Fire Rages, Officials Seek Its Cause,” which, you guessed it, is dot free.   Meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters wrote Friday, “The return of critical fire conditions this weekend means that the Wallow fire will likely become Arizona’s largest wildfire in history.”

Before taking on the NYT piece, let’s look at the video:

Read more

Yglesias

Will Retailers’ Swipe Card Fee Savings Be Passed On To Consumers?

Annie Lowrey says federal price controls for debit card swipes fees will definitely help small businesses who had little bargaining power vis-à-vis the major banks, but has doubts that consumers will see benefits:

For one, there is no indication that businesses will actually pass savings onto their customers. Swipe fees were always invisible to shoppers—barely anyone outside of the small-business or financial-services world had ever heard about them before last year. The savings that will take effect in July might well be invisible to customers, as many small businesses will probably just hold onto the newly retained cash. Of course, that means they can pay their workers more, hire more employees, invest, or consider dropping prices—and the change will benefit consumers indirectly, if not directly. But the advantages might not be immediate or large.

Over the long run, I don’t see how consumers fail to benefit from the new windfall for retailers. Price controls for swipe fees mean, in essence, that now an extra sale is worth more to retailers. That gives them incentives to chase extra sales by lowering prices or raising service quality (hiring more workers to process lines more quickly, for example). Even if all that happens in the short run is that existing establishments become more profitable, that still increases the incentive to open additional retail establishments and give people more choice and more convenience.

The issue is whether this works out to some kind of net benefit. Issuers of debit cards were making big money off these swipe fees. Consequently, they had strong incentives to encourage people to buy lots of stuff via debit cards and were rebating some of their windfall swipe fee profits to consumers via reward programs. So what the Fed will giveth on the retail side, it will also taketh away in terms of rewards. Personally, I almost never use my debit card for anything since I like my credit card’s reward program better. So I’m confident I’ll come out as a net winner here. I’m much less confident that this kind of sector-vs-sector reallocation of profits is the optimal use of the government’s financial regulatory energies.

Yglesias

The Face of Seung-Hui Cho

Excellent news for people who like great writing: Wesley Yang’s brilliant 2008 essay for n+1 “The Face of Seung-Hui Cho” is now available for download as a Kindle Single. It’ll run you $1.99, which isn’t much.

The essay slightly defies description, but broadly speaking it’s a meditation on Virginia Tech spree killer Seung-Hui Cho leading to broader meditations on American identity. I raved when I read it three years ago and I stand by the praise.

I also see that Yang has a newish piece out “Paper Tigers” that I need to go read right now.

Climate Progress

An Interactive History of Climate Science

John Cook, in a Skeptical Science cross-post

For years, I’ve been casually accumulating a database of peer-reviewed climate papers. A few months ago, some Skeptical Science contributors began brainstorming creative ways to visualise this database – a kind of visual sequel to Naomi Oreskes’ famous Science paper on consensus. Paul D decided to take it a step further and began programming a Javascript visualisation that very cleverly packs an incredible amount of information into a single, user-friendly graphic.

The visualisation displays the number of climate papers published each year, sorted into skeptic/neutral/pro-AGW categories (more on these categorisations shortly). What really blew me away is the slider at the bottom — drag it from left to right to observe the evolution of climate science research from Joseph Fourier in 1824 to the flood of research in 2011.  [Click on image to access visualization with slider].

How the Interactive History of Climate Science works

The Interactive History of Climate Science displays the number of climate papers published in each year from 1824 to 2011.

Read more

Climate Progress

Serious Nonsense Over Public Lands

Congress has done little to help national parks once it's created them. Yellowstone photo source via AP.

 

Tom Kenworthy, CAP’s western expert, in a Politico op-ed.

With summer approaching, it’s a good time to reflect on the value of our system of public lands — a heritage unmatched anywhere in the world and one that owes much of its strength to the 1906 enactment of the Antiquities Act.

Last week marked the 105th anniversary of this pioneering U.S. land conservation statute. Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt marked the date with a speech Wednesday at the National Press Club urging the Obama administration to be more resolute in protecting public lands — which are again under attack.

A valuable place to start is to take a look back to before the bill passed. In 1897, more than a decade into a long campaign to make the Grand Canyon a national park, an Arizona newspaper, The Williams Sun, scorned the idea as a “fiendish and diabolical scheme” that would undermine the state’s economic future, which “depends exclusively upon the development of her mineral resources.”

Supporters of that national park proposal, the Sun declared, must have been “suckled by a cow and raised by an idiot.”

A century later, the “fiendish and diabolical scheme” generated $660 million a year in tourism spending in northern Arizona and supported about 12,000 jobs, according to a Northern Arizona University study. More recently, it took just a decade after the controversial 1996 designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah for visitors to spend $20.6 million a year in surrounding counties and keep 430 Utah residents employed, according to Utah State University.

These history lessons come to mind courtesy of Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.). He’s the latest in a long line of Western demagogues who’ve tried to make a career out of opposing greater protections for federal lands and whipping up anti-Washington fervor with nonsensical talk of federal land grabs.

Read more

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up